Punjab

Sangrur

CC/811/2015

Vikas Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

UT Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri N.K.Shrivastava

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  811

                                                Instituted on:    12.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       06.04.2016

 

Vikas Sharma son of Shri Shakti Kumar, resident of H.No.507, Gill House, Gobindpura Basti, Near New Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             UT Electronics Private Limited, Registered Office, SCO 363-364, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its authorised signatory.

2.             Punjab Communication, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur, authorised service centre of Gionee, through its proprietor/partner.

3.             Ahuja Electronics, Shop No.2, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana, through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri N.K.Shrivastava, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri  Gopal Krishan, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Vikas Sharma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Gionee S-5 mobile set bearing IMEI number 862704028088130 from OP number 3 for Rs.17,600/- vide invoice number R-30236 dated 9.2.2015 which was having one year guarantee/warranty.  It is further averred in the complaint that from the very date of its purchase, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile set in question was giving problems of network fail, over heat when talking, disconnect automatically while on phone and hanging and voice problem.  As such, the complainant approached OP number 2 on 11.5.2015 and told about the said problems, who after checking the same kept the mobile set and told to come in the evening to get the same. The complainant obtained the mobile set with the assurance from OP number 2 that there is no problem. But, the said problem existed in the mobile set, and as such he approached OP number 2 on 28.5.2015 and requested to remove the problem, the OP number 2 kept the mobile set and told to come after 10 days, as the mobile set requires to be sent to the company and thereafter the mobile set was only provided to the complainant on 19.06.2015. But, when checked the mobile set, the complainant found the same problems in the mobile set, as such he approached OP number 2 with a request to replace the same with a new one, but nothing was happened, despite serving of legal notice dated 6.7.2015 upon the OPs.  It is further averred that the complainant also got checked the mobile set from expert Kamalpreet Singh, who told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and the defect is beyond repairs.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.17,600/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was  proceeded exparte on 12.10.2015.

 

3.             Opposite parties number 1 and 2 appeared through Shri Gopal Krishan, who offered to replace the mobile set in dispute with a new one, but the learned counsel for the complainant stated that he wants to consult his client and as such the case was fixed for compromise, but thereafter the compromise could not be effected between the parties. Thereafter Ops number 1 and 2 filed reply of two lines stating that they are ready to replace the hand set.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 affidavits, Ex.C-4 copy of bill dated 09.02.2015, Ex.C-5 copy of service job sheet, Ex.C-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 original postal receipts, Ex.C-10 copy of expert report dated 1.8.2015 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 has produced  Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-4 is the copy of the invoice dated 09.02.2015 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.17,600/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant and the Ops that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective as there were various problems as narrated in the complaint and as such the complainant approached OP number 2 on 11.05.2015 and subsequently on 28.05.2015 as is evident from the copy of job sheet, which is on record as Ex.C-5, but the problems in the mobile set could not be removed. Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that thereafter he approached the OP number 2 on 19.6.2015, but nothing was done by the Ops despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs, the copy of which on record is Ex.C-6 and the postal receipts are Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9. It is clear that the mobile set in question suffered problems even within the very short period of its purchase and the complainant has even filed the complaint within a period of about six months of the purchase of the mobile set. Moreover, the complainant has also produced on record the expert report issued by one Kamalpreet Singh which is dated 1.8.2015, Ex.C-10, a very perusal of it clearly reveals that the mobile set in question suffers from the manufacturing defect and the problems therein are not curable.  Further to support his expert report, Shri Kamalpreet Singh has also filed his affidavit on record as Ex.C-3. On the other hand, the OPs number 1 and 2 did not file any detailed reply denying the allegations of the complainant, rather has filed the reply of two lines offering the replacement of the mobile set with a new one. We may mention here that the Ops did not hear the problem of the complainant earlier and no reply was even given by the Ops to the legal notice of the complainant.   In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant was a defective one which is beyond repairs.    The learned counsel for the complainant has cited Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited and another versus A.S. Industries and another 2007(3) CPJ 319 (Delhi State Commission), wherein in the similar circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Commission ordered the refund of the cost of the mobile set and granted compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant holding it to be a case of unfair trade practice.  Similar is the position in the present case, but the difference is that the OP number 1 and 2 offered only the replacement of the mobile set with a new one, but only after approaching the Forum by the complainant.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.17,600/- being the cost of the mobile set, subject to the returning of the defective mobile set along with all the accessories, if any to the OPs number 1 and 2.  The OPs number 1 and 2 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1100/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 6, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member